The longer MS extends support, the longer companies will delay. At this point any companies using internet-connected XP without imminent upgrade plans simply doesn't care about security. They dug their own grave; time to let them lie in it.

To a person who uses XP in a business environment. MSE techincally shouldn't be used. I use commercial anti-virus anyways.

But for the home user that is still on XP. The only way they'll move off XP is when they get a new computer. There is no upgrade. Its not economically viable no matter how you spin it. Anything really running XP would choke on 7 or anything above it.Also you probably have a ton of systems out there without it would succumb to being Bot-net drones. Even if they stop patching security holes. The other weapon would be to block files required to put in the malware.

The longer MS extends support, the longer companies will delay. At this point any companies using internet-connected XP without imminent upgrade plans simply doesn't care about security. They dug their own grave; time to let them lie in it.

This is extended support and updates to the AV not to the product itself. There are companies which ran Windows 2000 and Windows NT well past their supported dates, it has nothing to do with the supported status of the operating system, and everything to do with not wanting to pay to update software and hardware.

If they waited this long (XP has been around for 12 years), then it's pretty likely that they'd not only need at least pay an upgrade license to Windows 7 or to Windows 8.x, but they need to purchase new hardware for those workstations, and there's a chance that their software won't run on Windows 7, or 8.1.

Sure those companies could opt to use something else like Avast! or AVG, but since they don't care that much about security they probably won't bother to upgrade (or even notice that their definitions are updating).

If those computers are infected by botnets which generate spam then it's not just their problem.

To a person who uses XP in a business environment. MSE techincally shouldn't be used. I use commercial anti-virus anyways.

But for the home user that is still on XP. The only way they'll move off XP is when they get a new computer. There is no upgrade. Its not economically viable no matter how you spin it. Anything really running XP would choke on 7 or anything above it.Also you probably have a ton of systems out there without it would succumb to being Bot-net drones. Even if they stop patching security holes. The other weapon would be to block files required to put in the malware.

Really? I've run Windows 7 on some ANCIENT systems that were shipped with XP, it actually runs better in some scenarios.

To a person who uses XP in a business environment. MSE techincally shouldn't be used. I use commercial anti-virus anyways.

But for the home user that is still on XP. The only way they'll move off XP is when they get a new computer. There is no upgrade. Its not economically viable no matter how you spin it. Anything really running XP would choke on 7 or anything above it.Also you probably have a ton of systems out there without it would succumb to being Bot-net drones. Even if they stop patching security holes. The other weapon would be to block files required to put in the malware.

Microsoft allows the free use of MSE on up to ten (10) systems in a business environment. That change was made some time after its original release, and was clearly targeting SOHO/SMB users. But you are correct, enterprise or larger scale operations should not be using MSE.

I work for a major global telecommunication service provider. They are still on Windows XP. When you have tens of thousands of employees working on highly specialized systems and process, decades of legacy software and hardware in place and running mission critical operations (anything major goes down here would cause a national crisis, it's no joke), upgrading OS across the organization is nearly a mission impossible.

On top of that, the company has missed the Windows 7 ship (skipping Vista was probably a smart move. I guess the IT leadership didn't foresee the massive change of UI and paradigm in Win8, otherwise they would probably switch to Win7 like there's no tomorrow). Win 8 would require lots of staff re-training. Windows XP is on life support at the best. I really feel sorry for the poor bastards who have to do the future IT infrastructure road map.

Tsk, tsk... stick to your guns Microsoft and end support. At this point, it's not like Microsoft is purposefully giving business a hard time with an unreasonable cutoff deadline. There's been plenty of forewarning.

I work for a major global telecommunication service provider. They are still on Windows XP. When you have tens of thousands of employees working on highly specialized systems and process, decades of legacy software and hardware in place and running mission critical operations (anything major goes down here would cause a national crisis, it's no joke), upgrading OS across the organization is nearly a mission impossible.

On top of that, the company has missed the Windows 7 ship (skipping Vista was probably a smart move. I guess the IT leadership didn't foresee the massive change of UI and paradigm in Win8, otherwise they would probably switch to Win7 like there's no tomorrow). Win 8 would require lots of staff re-training. Windows XP is on life support at the best. I really feel sorry for the poor bastards who have to do the future IT infrastructure road map.

Maybe I don't get it, but is it the OS that's at fault, or the poor browser security and end-user behavior? We ran an old Linux kernel on a 486 for our firewall and it was better than any other Windows machine.

To those still using IE instead of FF with NoScript and AdBlock -- get a clue. Seems to me like most of the posters here are within the confines of MS, and hence that's their filter.

Maybe I don't get it, but is it the OS that's at fault, or the poor browser security and end-user behavior? We ran an old Linux kernel on a 486 for our firewall and it was better than any other Windows machine.

That old linux kernel was 100% bug free and didn't need security updates?

To a person who uses XP in a business environment. MSE techincally shouldn't be used. I use commercial anti-virus anyways.

But for the home user that is still on XP. The only way they'll move off XP is when they get a new computer. There is no upgrade. Its not economically viable no matter how you spin it. Anything really running XP would choke on 7 or anything above it.Also you probably have a ton of systems out there without it would succumb to being Bot-net drones. Even if they stop patching security holes. The other weapon would be to block files required to put in the malware.

Actually It was Windows Vista that was too heavy for XP machines. Windows 7 runs fine on Windows XP class machines. I hear Windows 8 is actually even better on those computers. The problem is cost. $80+ plus the grief of installing makes it a none starter for most people. If Microsoft made it say $25 then a lot more people would update.

Maybe I don't get it, but is it the OS that is at fault, or the poor browser security and end-user behavior? We ran an old Linux kernel on a 486 for our firewall and it was better than any other Windows machine.

To those still using IE instead of FF with NoScript and AdBlock, get a clue. Seems to me like most of the posters here are within the domain of MS, and hence that is their filter.

Given that the article is about Microsoft extending support for the malware product for their 12 year-old, non-support operating system, exactly what kind of filter did you expect? The people who are still running Windows XP aren't running a Linux distro, and many are probably still running IE.

I work for a major global telecommunication service provider. They are still on Windows XP. When you have tens of thousands of employees working on highly specialized systems and process, decades of legacy software and hardware in place and running mission critical operations (anything major goes down here would cause a national crisis, it's no joke), upgrading OS across the organization is nearly a mission impossible.

On top of that, the company has missed the Windows 7 ship (skipping Vista was probably a smart move. I guess the IT leadership didn't foresee the massive change of UI and paradigm in Win8, otherwise they would probably switch to Win7 like there's no tomorrow). Win 8 would require lots of staff re-training. Windows XP is on life support at the best. I really feel sorry for the poor bastards who have to do the future IT infrastructure road map.

Windows 7 is still available.

Given the efforts and capitol required for upgrading OS in this type of organization, upgrading to Win 7 at this stage would not be economically viable as the new OS should at least have a decade of support ahead of it.

I guess my point is, the massive shift of UI and paradigm on Win 8 really caught the IT off guard.

As much as I liked XP when I used it many years ago it needs to die a fast death...So please don't pour resources in to maintaining something that companies just keep around because they have crap computers lying around in a basement to replace the other old crap that just crashed...

Research etc computers is something else though... but those should really not have any Internet connection...

I work for a major global telecommunication service provider. They are still on Windows XP. When you have tens of thousands of employees working on highly specialized systems and process, decades of legacy software and hardware in place and running mission critical operations (anything major goes down here would cause a national crisis, it's no joke), upgrading OS across the organization is nearly a mission impossible.

On top of that, the company has missed the Windows 7 ship (skipping Vista was probably a smart move. I guess the IT leadership didn't foresee the massive change of UI and paradigm in Win8, otherwise they would probably switch to Win7 like there's no tomorrow). Win 8 would require lots of staff re-training. Windows XP is on life support at the best. I really feel sorry for the poor bastards who have to do the future IT infrastructure road map.

Yes Window 8 is a royal pain. People that are into tech do not understand that a good number of people use computers because they have too not because they want to. I can move from Windows to OS/X to Linux/KDE, to Linux/Gnome with no problems at all. My stepfather freaks if an icon changes.

I work for a major global telecommunication service provider. They are still on Windows XP. When you have tens of thousands of employees working on highly specialized systems and process, decades of legacy software and hardware in place and running mission critical operations (anything major goes down here would cause a national crisis, it's no joke), upgrading OS across the organization is nearly a mission impossible.

"Windows XP" and "mission critical" should not appear in the same sentence together. I'm very worried now as to what a national crisis would entail.

Seriously, if your company relies on "highly specialized systems and process" running on mission-critical legacy software/hardware, they really should be using Linux (or any *nix really).

I work for a major global telecommunication service provider. They are still on Windows XP. When you have tens of thousands of employees working on highly specialized systems and process, decades of legacy software and hardware in place and running mission critical operations (anything major goes down here would cause a national crisis, it's no joke), upgrading OS across the organization is nearly a mission impossible.

On top of that, the company has missed the Windows 7 ship (skipping Vista was probably a smart move. I guess the IT leadership didn't foresee the massive change of UI and paradigm in Win8, otherwise they would probably switch to Win7 like there's no tomorrow). Win 8 would require lots of staff re-training. Windows XP is on life support at the best. I really feel sorry for the poor bastards who have to do the future IT infrastructure road map.

Yes Window 8 is a royal pain. People that are into tech do not understand that a good number of people use computers because they have too not because they want to. I can move from Windows to OS/X to Linux/KDE, to Linux/Gnome with no problems at all. My stepfather freaks if an icon changes.

And yet I've found the non-technical people I've introduced to Windows 8 like it the most (the same people that disliked the change from XP -> Vista/7), while the techies tend to be the exact opposite (then again, they complained about the Vista/7 UI at the time as well).

right... companies need more time to update.. I call bullshit on that one.

Well considering I was Webexed into a State Gov server to fix our product and found MS Security Essentials being used. I'm not putting anything past companies these days who are trying to be cheap as possible.

And yet I've found the non-technical people I've introduced to Windows 8 like it the most (the same people that disliked the change from XP -> Vista/7), .

I call BS. I've talked to dozens of people who have 8...hate it. I've talked to countless people who have upgraded their laptops and have asked me for a Windows 7 license. I've talked to other friends who are technically inclined, and they tell me of others who they have talked to who are asking to get off 8. You may have "found" some people. But I've dealt and heard evidence of at least 50+ over the last year who despise it. Not a wide sampling, but the sounds I'm hearing are far and above more vocal then even Vista. Which is telling me there is more then just a small vocal minority here. And the adoption rate speaks to this.

Of course, using that rationale, the company should extend Windows XP's support until the heat death of the universe.

I actually laughed out loud at this one.

Honestly, the companies that didn't update to at least 7 are going to be in for a rude awakening soon. I'd suggest something like Windows XP mode on Windows 7 (not sure how well that behaves in an enterprise environment), or actual full blown XP VMs, but that would probably be more hassle (and possibly cost) than upgrading hardware.

If it's true there are mission critical (or national security/infrastructure level) businesses and such STILL running on XP, we might have a serious problem.

It's not MSFT's fault in this case (for once), they've bent over backwards repeatedly on this.

I still have one pc running XP that I barely use anymore. I would like to know if I can join workgroups or share folders, printers between Linux and Windows 7/8. If not I will probably just dump or donate that XP machine. I don't think it is worth buying Windows 7/8 license. Anyway I hope that Ars will have some articles regarding upgrading XP machine to newer versions of Windows or Linux.

The longer MS extends support, the longer companies will delay. At this point any companies using internet-connected XP without imminent upgrade plans simply doesn't care about security. They dug their own grave; time to let them lie in it.

They don't want a 3 month span to go by where suddenly a lot of low-tech users still on XP suddenly get crapped on due to exploits. Would it be the end-user's fault? Yes. But, who would the end-user blame? "This stupid Windows computer! I'm getting a Mac!"

If MS really wanted to be proactive about this, they should have a notification constantly pop-up every couple of days on XP machines telling the end-user that XP support has expired. "Click here for details on what this means." Customer clicks here, and it explains everything, and gives them options on moving up to Win 8 or something.

If they could make a painless XP to 8 upgrade, they could easily get thousands if not millions of folks to spend $100 for a one-click upgrade. Have a tool run a diagnostic on their comp, see if it can run 8. If not, recommends hardware upgrade(s). If it can, let user say "upgrade to 8", provide a credit card #, and migrate them to 8.

That would have been the best answer to all of this. If a notification like that had rolled out like 6 months ago to get folks to migrate.

How many low-tech users are gonna look at that and go "ok, that makes perfect sense, I'll get right on that." None. They're gonna call their geek friend / relative, or if they dont' have one they're going to call a computer store and ask for help (and hang up after they're told it'll be $100 something for the license + $100-200 for the install + $XXX for new hardware ... *cough* they weren't expecting this to turn into a multi-$100 problem) ... it's chugging along ok for now, so they'll ignore the problem and just go on.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again, MS should immitate Ubuntu's upgrade feature. Pop up a wizard, let users know if their system is compatible with the new upgrade, (add in a part to ask for a credit card), let them know which programs they'll need to reinstall (or won't be compatible, and let them PRINT that fucking list out for later reference), then one-click upgrade them.

And yet I've found the non-technical people I've introduced to Windows 8 like it the most (the same people that disliked the change from XP -> Vista/7), .

I call BS. I've talked to dozens of people who have 8...hate it. I've talked to countless people who have upgraded their laptops and have asked me for a Windows 7 license. I've talked to other friends who are technically inclined, and they tell me of others who they have talked to who are asking to get off 8. You may have "found" some people. But I've dealt and heard evidence of at least 50+ over the last year who despise it. Not a wide sampling, but the sounds I'm hearing are far and above more vocal then even Vista. Which is telling me there is more then just a small vocal minority here. And the adoption rate speaks to this.

Honestly, YMMV when it comes to both sides of this argument.

8/8.1 in my experience is more responsive, snappier, and less of a battery hog than 7 on laptops. The start screen/start menu issue can be fixed by installing something like Start8 or Classic Shell.

But, the whole start screen debacle is insane at any rate. It makes sense if you have a touchscreen, but otherwise just does not make a bit of sense.

Personally, I avoided 8 for the longest time until I ran across Classic Shell. That eliminated about 95% of the annoyances I had with 8. The rest of the little quirks just take time to adjust to, just like any new edition of Windows.

Then again, I've worked in IT and such for a long time. The average joe user is kind of screwed really.

Given the efforts and capitol required for upgrading OS in this type of organization, upgrading to Win 7 at this stage would not be economically viable as the new OS should at least have a decade of support ahead of it.

I guess my point is, the massive shift of UI and paradigm on Win 8 really caught the IT off guard.

IT doesn't give a single crap about paradigm anything. They give a crap about retraining their userbase from a UI that is 17 years old to a UI that does them NO good in a business environment. Retraining = higher costs. And the ROI on 8 vs. 7? Yah right. Windows XP was introduced in 2001. If you think that Microsoft is going to be able to discontinue support anytime soon, think again. If MS even starts talking Windows 7 decommissioning they will have every fortune 500 company on their doorsteps tomorrow.

The longer MS extends support, the longer companies will delay. At this point any companies using internet-connected XP without imminent upgrade plans simply doesn't care about security. They dug their own grave; time to let them lie in it.

They don't want a 3 month span to go by where suddenly a lot of low-tech users still on XP suddenly get crapped on due to exploits. Would it be the end-user's fault? Yes. But, who would the end-user blame? "This stupid Windows computer! I'm getting a Mac!"

I work for a major global telecommunication service provider. They are still on Windows XP. When you have tens of thousands of employees working on highly specialized systems and process, decades of legacy software and hardware in place and running mission critical operations (anything major goes down here would cause a national crisis, it's no joke), upgrading OS across the organization is nearly a mission impossible.

"Windows XP" and "mission critical" should not appear in the same sentence together. I'm very worried now as to what a national crisis would entail.

Seriously, if your company relies on "highly specialized systems and process" running on mission-critical legacy software/hardware, they really should be using Linux (or any *nix really).

Mission-critical to relative to the organization; your accounting system is probably mission critical to you, if it runs under Windows XP then that's what you're stuck with (even if it's an old version of Accpac).

Also keep in mind that Jackayshadow is talking about legacy systems. My sister works for a major telecommunication service provider which was still running Windows 2000 as of 3 year ago for exactly the same reason: they built mission-critical software which wouldn't run on anything else.

Sometimes, the people making the business decisions aren't always looking all that far ahead. But the IT staff still has to support the software and deal with the mess.

Maybe I don't get it, but is it the OS that is at fault, or the poor browser security and end-user behavior? We ran an old Linux kernel on a 486 for our firewall and it was better than any other Windows machine.

To those still using IE instead of FF with NoScript and AdBlock, get a clue. Seems to me like most of the posters here are within the domain of MS, and hence that is their filter.

Given that the article is about Microsoft extending support for the malware product for their 12 year-old, non-support operating system, exactly what kind of filter did you expect? The people who are still running Windows XP aren't running a Linux distro, and many are probably still running IE.

Agreed, but if this is a security related matter, then I fail to see how this an OS issue that cannot be rectified.